Monday, 11 October 2010

The Tyranny of White Guilt

I've just finished reading The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in which he claims that "all of modern thought can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination." He shows how Europeans see themselves as "the sick man of the planet" whose pestilence causes every problem in the non-Western world. When the white man set foot in Asia, Africa, or America, death, chaos, and destruction followed. Europeans feel themselves born with stigmata: "the white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone."Well, maybe he’s over-stating his case. But there’s no doubt that one of the staples of our delusional post-colonial romantic self-flagellation is the myth of the Noble Savage. Coined originally I think by Rousseau in the eighteenth century, it’s characterised by misty-eyed fantasies about early men and women, living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. But then the (white) colonialists came along to spoil everything, with their pesky hospitals, colleges, literature and so on.

Of all the delusions supporting the anti-white agenda, this is surely the most egregious. So hopefully I won't bore you by taking a look at the reality of some of those idealised lives.

The American Indians.
We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel, whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry (calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture. You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual slaughter.

We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes, which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous..
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.

Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.

A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost.

The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.

Or he could be unlucky.

“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.”

Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD 900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims. According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men, women, and children. He refers to “intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.

Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.

New research coming to light (published in Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.

Native New Zealanders

“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the New Zealanders' hands.”.
When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in The Whalers) they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:.“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the women preparing ovens to cook them!”

“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”

“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason, columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”

Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”.“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims.".
Edward Tregear, in The Maori Race (1904) tells us “an English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the oven. ”.
Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll pardon that particular analogy).

And a final delight from Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199

“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures, threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture. .The captives, with the exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh, constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last scene of all.”

In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally) were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day, having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the American continent.

Australia.
In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social Democrats. I've posted here about what Kevin Rudd called their ‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.

Africa:Where to begin, where to end? Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny snippets..
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes were armed and encouraged to raid in­land and bring their captives to trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the natives didn’t need much encouragement..
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!)...
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’ never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent..
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind..
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?

Let’s go!

As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?

And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest. Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and beyond, where they raided destitute refugees..
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?

All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of destruction, until eventually an estimated twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence..
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?

Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and set out daily to replenish their menus..
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them boers.

Conclusions?

Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to The Tyranny Of Guilt. You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts. Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s all..
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said to Red Cloud: “If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.

Hobbes in Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not. But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries, an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions. These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically mitigated the risk of "war of all against all." In whitey’s world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short. Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be. But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry, agriculture, communications.

.They understand this perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their "Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.

Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it.

We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.

59 comments:

I do not agree at all that Red Indians were portrayed in old Westerns in a negative light. The impression (an illusion, of course)I gathered from these films when I was a child was that Red Indians were brave and resourceful, although somewhat too trusting of the white man, and rather careless of their own safety. It's the same with blacks. In those old Hollywood films that included a black, as a servant or maid, say, they were always portrayed in a very positive way, loyal and stately. In a curious way, the way that blacks are portrayed these days could be seen as being more demeaning to blacks, despite or perhaps because of the politically correct climate.

How does it happen that a book critical of "Western masochism " receives so many favorable reviews from the MSM when they've been pushing that mindset for two generations? My guess is that the book is saying that if we just lift up our spirits we can easily assimilate all the non-white hordes.

Here is a passage from 'Le Petit Journal' edition du 'Supplément illustré' of Octobre the 20th, 1895about the taken of the city of Tananarive, in Madagascar, by french colonial troops.The staff writer, Simon Levrai, first describes the difficult engineering work that the french corps had to do to open a 350km road, through jungles, swamps and montains, to relink Majunga at Tananarive. Later, he describes the horific habits of the 'Hovas', probably a local tribe, under the governance of their Excellency Raini's father. According to Levrai, the local king's father was pressuring his subjects with so much taxes that it triggered a local insurrection. The leaders of this insurrection were caught and sentenced to be tortured by being boiled alive. They were put in a hole dug in the ground and boiling water was poured on them until death followed....but that was not all.Those who had to pour the boiling water were the closest family members of the suppliciates.

Also, here is a link where european survivors of the 'barbaresques' describe the tortures that arabs inflicted to their christian slaves. http://lanouvellegazette.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/listes-desclaves-francais-des-barbaresques/The tortures are so disgusting, I don't feel to translate.

Two hundred years later...my father was a regular in the french army in Algeria. He told me that algerian people were right to fight for independance because of the abuse of the colonists on the local arabs, but it wasn't the french colons who messed it all..... Like many others, he was convinced the worst 'french' colonist abusers in Algeria were actually not french. hmmmmmm, no idea who he was talking about?

North American Indians killed millions of buffalo, herding and driving them off cliffs, slaughtering thousands in a matter of minutes. They set massive forest fires. Many were cannibalistic. Because they believed that animals reincarnated, they killed beaver and other game rapaciously. Read The Ecological Indian by Shepard Krech for choice revelations on how peaceful, noble and green the poor Indians really were.

Is Africa better off today than it was under colonialism? There are more Africans killing each other than under hundreds of years of slavery. Same with the Arabs. More were killed in the past 50 years by each other than under hundreds of years of colonialism.

Fritz Perls taught that guilt is fear of rejection and aggression. If that is the case, guilt testifies to the fact that one esteems the party wronged enough to fear alienating him and incurring his wrath, and in the process demonstrates that one is not a socio-path.

Guilt makes us human. It's a form of remorse, for Christ's sake! the precondition of all reparation and peace-making. To turn it into another deviant expression of the will-to-power is just too damn clever (not to mention perverse) for me.

Has anyone seen the film 'Australia'. I realise it is gut-wrenchingly PC. I only managed just over an hour of this celluloid, tooth extracting exercise. I did however, come to the conclusion, that it stinks of desperation, as the pathetic PC agenda, begins to slide beneath the morass of reality.

WE can thank the school systems for negrophilia and anti-white guilt. Ever since 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' not one single person of color in any work of fiction, movie or TV who is accused of anything turns out to be actually guilty of it."

"Murder, thieving, lying, violence — I sometimes suspect the Negro doesn’t regard these as crimes or sins, or even as regrettable circumstances. He commits them casually, with no apparent feeling of guilt. White men similarly delinquent become soiled or embittered or brutalized. Negroes are as charming after as before a crime. Committing criminal acts, they seem never to be criminals. The gentle devoted creature who is your baby’s nurse can carve her boy-friend from ear to ear at midnight and by seven a.m. will be changing the baby’s diaper while she sings ‘Hear the Lambs a-calling.’” He goes on to ask: “Is the inner life of the Negro utterly different from ours? Has he never accepted our standard of ethics?”

A white sports writer recently remarked that he could not reconcile the Michael Vick he had met and spoken with and the Michael Vick who tortured dogs.

That's because the writer is a damn Yankee.

Blacks generally view Vick as a victim of the white man. Left to their own devices, blacks do develop rules of conduct (dogs not included), but even those of their own creation they do not feel as internal constraints.

kulak - most of this behaviour can be attributed to the fact that blacks have a smaller and less active pre-frontal cortex. This is where a person's 'moral compass' resides and it is well known that those of psychopaths invariably are damaged or impaired in some way.

I wish the civilised yet otherwise rabid feminists and their WI's around the white western world would take cognisance of these early events and understand that had it not been for white predominantly male foundations of our collective advancement on the planet they would not have the luxuries and pleasures all women enjoy today.

100 years on they have long had the right to vote but succesive luminaries of their cause still bash the remnants of their imagined white male preserve with vicious vindictivness. They conveniently omit the fact that had it not been for a white male(s) assisting them in the first place they probably still be fighting for the vote today.

Notice how WHITE feminists are almost entirely communist, anti WHITE male essentially and egalitarian, at 'one with movements like anti apartheid or SWP UAF etc (sic)

They're amongst the biggest proponents of multiculturalism, insidiously promoting and anti white hysteria as do their homosexual allies.

Let a black man rape or beat one one however and the first being they look to for help is a white policeman!

"For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it."

That's it - exactly. This summarizes and puts into words what I kinda felt. As someone else said earlier, bravo!

Hector G. writes: So true. and the same could be said for blacks. White males have fought their case from the Civil War to today. Yet we're demonized all the time by the same people.

And American Jews were all about free speech radicalism -- far and beyond 'Congress shall make no law' -- when they weren't the establishment.

Yet, you say? What did you expect from feminists, blacks, and Jews?

To whom exactly are you complaining? Of course they demonize you now!

Our standards of honor and reciprocity our ours, and no one else's.

Complaining of the result of misgranted peerage is just repeating the mistake. Complaints about reciprocity should be reserved for those from whom one can reasonably expect reciprocity. Equal treatment is deserved by and from equals; different people should be treated differently.

In the case of men and women especially, what they should expect from each other is not reciprocal, but complementary.

Relatedly, a lack of reciprocity is no reason to abandon our standards. It's a reason to realize they are our standards, and take appropriate precautions.

“When I had obtained all the information I required I said, ‘Before Isandwhlana [an 1879 battle in which a Zulu army of 20,000 routed and massacred 800 encamped British infantry] we treated all your wounded men in our hospital. But when you attacked our camp your brethren, our black patients, rose and helped to kill those who had been attending on them. Can any of you advance any reason why I should not kill you?’ One of the younger men, with an intelligent face, asked, ‘May I speak?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘There is a very good reason why you should not kill us. We kill you because it is the custom of the black men [to kill prisoners]. But it isn’t the white man’s custom.’”

Splendid bit,Savant.Here in California yesterday was the former Columbus day-it is now called "indigenous peoples day" in PC places like Berkeley.Children in schools are taught that Columbus brought disease and suffering to the new world.Although as a child I was told by my father Columbus did not discover America anyway-it was St.Brendan the Navigator.

anon @10:38 -- Not that you've correctly stated what I believe, and not that you've disagreed with what I said on this thread (how could you?), but since it seems to have bothered you I could say some things in this world involve kikes instead.

Racism! The tribes you mentioned were loving, progressive, in-tune-with-nature and to at least some degree vegetarian: they DID supplement the (very very very occasional) cannibalistic feast of pancreases and heads with a healthy dose of various kinds of vegetables.

And they were innocent, pure, and superior to you and I in every respect.

"kulak - will you get a life. why does EVERYTHING have to be attributed to the joos???"

A little something for you ... Benjamin Freedman's speech.

This speech was given before an audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Freedman, by the way, was a jew.

N.B. For those who who find the word 'kike' too strong -- personally I usually do; like George Carlin said, there's something about all those attacking k's -- I would like to suggest the alternative 'clucking funt'.

Thanks dear Savant, I have placed an order for the book - I see it was suggested reading for me anyway according to amazon because of the previous titles I have shown interest in.

I have been indulging in only "light" reading lately lest my head explode and cover my living room with fragments of blood, brains, thought crimes and cognitive dissonance but after a few thrillers I'm sure I'm read to indulge in some modern philosophy again!

Sorry to have to grind on you, but that youtube vid was utter crap. Whoever is responsible for that was obviously a student of Ronnie Kasrils. I am among the last who will defend a jew for even breathing but that was so obviously a setup that you do us a dis-service here. I am sure you posted that in a belief of good faith but beware that you don't become that which you despise.

Interesting blog this Dalrymple, his depiction of the french zone is frightening and accurate.He goes to describe how the french jewstice system tolerates, and therefore encourages, the criminal behavior that has become the norm in France.But, I am also tired to read endless lamentations on effects, while the causes are always ignored, beside the blogosphere. No problem with no cause can be solved.The truth is, french people, in their vast majority, have been opposed to massive immigrationsince the 80's and they had the chance to have a political party to defend their views. How come in a democracy the majority's view was so ignored?Well, my mom was against immigration, my dad, my brother, my leftist sister, my grandfathers, cousins, uncles, neighbor, friends, distant relatives in other cities. Everybody. All these people should have voted for the National Front since they agreed with it. Problem is, more than half of them had been living and suffering during wartime. When the media, owned by jews, and the intelligentia, owned by jews, repeated over and over again, for years, that the National Front was a Nazi party, how could my two grandfathers, both prisonners of war, my mon, who had a terrible life under the war, my dad who constantly feared his dad's death, vote for a NAZI party ?They did not. In good faith. Therefore, let the truth be said:THE-JEWS-ARE-RESPONSIBLE-FOR-THE-MASSIVE-IMMIGRATION. This has never, ever, been said in any french MSM and as long as it is unsaid, nothing will change.It has to be said, because the solutions proposed by the FN 30 years ago would not work anymore. Jews have to come foreward and say, 'yes, we tricked you by every possible dirty lie to convince you not to vote for the FN. But now we have change our mind, the FN was legitimate and was not a fascist organization. Humanrights, tolerance and vivre-ensemble were just slogans that WE put in YOUR mind to forbid you to vote FN. They are actually empty concepts in the present situation. WE created and manipulated the left, the education, the justice system for the same purpose. WE used OUR total control over the media to put these ideas in your mind. Nothing was true. Now we say we want to support the nationalist movment'If a jew (DSK, Kouchner, Lang, or any media player such as Michel Drucker) was saying that in the main newschannel at 8PM in front of 20 millions frenchs, then the political landscape could change and things could move forward.But it obviously won't happen, instead, we see the National Front trying to be acquited for his 'faults'. So, the FN really was a fascist organisation and the few who voted previously for it were indeed neo-nazis? From this won't come anything good, if the FN gains momentum with this rhetoric, it can only shift the society from a liberal to a totalitarian, but still jewish-ruled, society.Attali was advisor of the former leftist Mitterand, now of the rigthist Sarkozy, he will have no trouble to advise his Kamarade Kommissar DSK.

Well, the guilt ridden liberals can be happy, one supposed, because now they are importing their third world noble savages into the first world, en masse. Just think of the paradises that will be created!

Anon: Dalrymple is quite popular in the conservative literary sphere in USA and somewhat as well in France.

He isn't very popular in Britain because, well, he mostly writes about the UK.

People who speak the truth are never very popular, at least where they live and speaketh the truth about.

Unfortunately apart from English (and French) he hasn't been translated much... this far. I'd bet a few mind crimes that he will be in the future though. He is slowly gaining reputation in Finland (an English speaking nation) and other places.

I'm coming in here a bit late, but let's do bear in mind, the Romans of old were a thoroughly cruel bunch.

I don't rate baseness of culture by race or sophistication - unquestionably, Christianity has had a lot to do with the eroding of our more deplorable instincts in the West and, actually, in all of the places you've mentioned as well.

Some will argue that it's actually the Enlightenment that has made us Westerners the reasonable folk we are - but the Enlightenment itself had to have some foundation; it didn't grow out of itself.

Human nature, everywhere, has the potential to be utterly depraved - regardless of one's views regarding Christianity/religion etc., it surely must be admitted that countries that have embraced Christianity, by and large, have prospered more so than countries or cultures that have not.

Now for a slightly contentious bit: Protestant countries have fared better than RC ones - is it something anyone could reasonably dispute? For the record, I'm NOT anti Catholic.

I personally think that the ancient Romans -- like the modern Chinese -- had their heads screwed on right.

For nearly a thousand years they did what they thought was best for Rome ... and did not let anything else get in the way.

If you screwed with Rome, they screwed right back -- ten times harder. I seem to recall that when Rome finally wiped out Carthage, they literally sowed the earth with salt so that nothing would grow there again.

We could use some Roman sentiments here in the west.

Secondly, although right now I cannot call myself a Christian, I firmly believe that Christianity -- Catholic or Protestant -- was a great civilizing influence until, of course, it was hijacked by Marxists.

And he is the uploader of the Sharpeville massacre photo to the sitewhich has one guy upper left side sitting up two guys walking in the background and no sign of blood anywhere so if this is the picture that you mention go nuclear on his oi! oi! convict arse on his talkpage.

(Ahem owing to wikipedia's set up you will not have any luck because any reference made online is all the "citation needed" to prve something. For example the Daily Mirror (London) reported some facts about a cypriot (I believe) football team and the team's supporters pointed out that these were incorrect. Not so said wikipedia here is a link to the article containing the "facts" on the mirror's website.)

i recently found your blog via another blog of an awake and vocal person.

here in new england the libruls are importing count;ess thousans of haitains, africans, and hispanic banana rebublic peasants.

i volumteered for a few years at a drop in center until the 3rd world stench and savagery made me ill. i have heard quite a few negroids talking among themselves about teh takeover when the economy and western system collapses (zionists will make sure of that) fromwhat i overhear the noble savages are planning a real massacre of whitey.

i used to hold some liberal leanings, not any more, you can take the savage out of the jungle but you never take the jungle out of the savage. they see what white s have accomplished and it makes them furious, they feel compelled to destroy the same system that feeds, houses, clothes and keeps them in welfare "gibs me's"

Mungo Park does a fair job of describing what life was like in sub-Sahara Africa in the late 1700s. As a matter of passing interest, he noted that a full 3/4ths of all Africans lived as slaves to the other 1/4th. How many history books do you think contain THAT pertinent bit of information?

You hear high-intelligence non-leftist bloggers say that a time of cultural technological economic brilliance awaits Africa in the late 21th century, now that they are free from our oppression (no shock the blogger says nothing of how currently they are fed by us, but bodily and in terms of infrastructures et everything else: imagine if they had to engineer the airplanes and airports they use).

What's open to questioning is whether such a collective, we would say racial disease, has been injected from the outside or grown by itself.You choose the former theory (I remember you borrowed from The selfish gene a very explanatory passage, I find the other more congenial.